Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Today's edition of Steve Israel is throwing the 2014 House election

DCblogger's picture
Thread: 

UPDATE: Steve Israel's Greatest Accomplishment Of 2014: The 2 Bluest Districts Without Democratic Candidates, Both In Florida

Lou Barletta (R-PA) is leading the charge on impeachment. He comes from a district where a Democrat might win. So what is Steve Israel doing? DownWithTryanny:

A credible Democrat should be able to replace him in two cycles, if not one. Instead, Israel chose to ignore the northeast Pennsylvania district and focus on districts in Arkansas that are 10 times redder (and which he will lose gigantically). Roly poly Tea Party clown Blake Farenthold was elected at the same time as Barletta, beating Solomon Ortiz by 799 votes (47.8-47.1%). Barletta and Farenthold have something else in common besides the day they managed to get into office. Neither has a DCCC opponent in November. Oh… and one more thing: these are the two fools the GOP is using to push the impeachment message.

Impeachment is a very real possibility, especially if the Republicans retake the Senate. Steve Israel's deliberate sabotaging the 2014 House race is the most under reported story of the year.

0
No votes yet
Updated: 

Comments

Submitted by lambert on

I realize this is the eternal question -- stupid and/or evil -- but can we rule out other motivations? For example, I remember Gephardt's statement about the Republicans of Clinton's day (IIRC): "They can't help themselves." Could this all be part of a clever rope-a-dope strategy? Clinton's numbers were never higher than during and after his impeachment.

I realize losing both the House and the Senate would be a pretty drastic way to play impeachment rope-a-dope, but you see what I mean. Can some sort of Machiavellian motivation be worked out?

And how about stupid?

jo6pac's picture
Submitted by jo6pac on

this what they did in my part of Calli. They had a great progressive candidate that the local Teamsters and other unions helped but there was no money or help from dnc. The race was tied until the repug party dump $700.000.00 in pro ads the last 2 weeks. Then still only won by 5%. Dog I hate the demodogs as much as I do the repugs.

Thanks for the update

Submitted by flora on

Don't know if it has anything to do with the Impeachment nonsense. (What better kabuki to fritter Congressional time and distract voters?) If enough new Dems win then the public might expect the Dem party to reform stuff, fix stuff, like they expected in 2008. Well, of course *that* didn't happen and unhappy voters voted out several Dems at the next midterm. All went back to "normal" for DC and the DLC. The risk for the old warhorse Dems in Congress is that the voters might vote THEM out instead of newly elected Dems. And to see the Dems twice do nothing to fix stuff in a short space (6 years) of time, heck the voters might catch on. Can't have that. So best to not elect too many new Dems who might threaten the status quo. Nah, that can't be the reason. Must be something else.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

I agree that Dems don't want to win because then we would expect them to do stuff. But they don't want an impeachment either. They are just complacent and can't seem to understand just how dangerous their situation is. Impeaching Obama just because the Republicans want to throw out a Democratic president would do enourmous damage to our system, but you can't help people who will not help themselves. We may be unable to prevent it.